1. Om Prakash v. UOI (Dated Sep, 30, 2011) WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 66 OF 2011- Supreme Court of India
Nature of offences under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act- NON-COGNIZABLE AND BAILABLE
In view of sec.9A of the Central Excise Act and Sec. 104(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, offences under the two Acts are non-cognizable. However, same are bailable also but not on the logic that all non-cognizable offences are bailable but in view of sec.20 and sec. 135 of the Central Excise Act and Customs Act, 1962, respectively.
held: “43. The provisions of Section 104(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 13 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, vest Customs Officers and Excise Officers with the same powers as that of a Police Officer in charge of a Police Station, which include the power to release on bail upon arrest in respect of offences committed under the two enactments which are uniformly non-cognizable. Both Section 9A of the 1944 Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, provide that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under both the Acts would be non-cognizable.”
(Please click here for judgment)
2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M/S NATIONAL TRAVEL SERVICES, ITA NO. 223 OF 2010, DATE OF ORDER 11/07/2011, HIGH COURT OF DELHI
The first limb of s. 2(22)(e) is attracted if the payment is made by a company by way of advance or loan “to a shareholder, being a person who is the beneficial owner of shares”. While it is correct that the person to whom the payment is made should not only be a registered shareholder but a beneficial share holder, the argument that a firm cannot be treated as a “shareholder” only because the shares are held in the names of its partners is not acceptable. If this contention is accepted, in no case a partnership firm can come within the mischief of s. 2 (22)(e) because the shares would always be held in the names of the partners and never in the name of the firm. This would frustrate the object of s. 2(22)(e) and lead to absurd results. Accordingly, for s. 2(22)(e), a firm has to be treated as the “shareholder” even though it is not the “registered shareholder”.
(Please click here for judgment)
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI Vs. M/S. KIRTI STATIONERS PVT. LTD., INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 4925 OF 2010, DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011, HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
ITAT was justified in holding that the activity of producing sharpener blades and Glue & lead amounts to manufacture and accordingly the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, is the question raised in these appeals Counsel for the assessee has tendered an affidavit dated 24/9/2011 of the Director of the assessee Company wherein it is stated that the products in question produced by the assessee constitute manufacture under the Central Excise Act and accordingly the assessee has obtained necessary Central Excise Registration. The fact that the excisable products are exempt from the payment of excise duty cannot be a ground to hold that the products in question are not manufactured by the assessee. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the products in question are manufactured by the assessee and accordingly entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Please click here for judgment)
4. [Contribution by CA. Vijay Kumar Gupta, author is available at Mobile : 9999328958 / email-id: vijayguptaca104@yahoo.com ]
Tax under Dvat-04 on declared goods under section 14 od CST Act,1956 has been incresed to 5% from 4% wef 1-10-2011.
(Click here for Notification No. F14(6)
(Click here for Notification No. F3(15)
(Click here for Circular No. 12)
III. Today's Bottomline News :
New User? 
Subscribe Now